The Pacific Corridor
Issue 11
Editor’s Note
by Nabil Haskanbancha, in Bangkok
When does state power serve the public good, and when does it quietly drift into serving itself? This is exactly the question we explore in this week’s issue of the Pacific Corridor, with our correspondents tracing how ASEAN’s coastal powerhouses navigate the uneasy space between legality and legitimacy, political ambition and accountability. In the Philippines, Eduardo G. Fajermo Jr. highlights how a campaign contribution to Senate President Chiz Escudero, legal on paper but politically suspect, can serve to expose the fragility of democratic institutions in the face of technical loopholes. In Singapore, Ryan dissects how global rankings of unaffordability are further complicated by a complex, deeply rooted architecture of public housing and state subsidies, prompting us to question how much, and if, a strong state can shield its people from global economic volatility. Finally, in rapidly growing Vietnam, Hang Nguyen investigates how AI is becoming a tool in the country’s broader economic strategy, as the government bets on domestic technological innovation to shape its digital future. Together, these stories reflect a reality faced across the ASEAN region—one where institutions matter, yet their outcomes often end up being shaped by competing interests.
The Philippines 🇵🇭
Bank Transfers and the Boundaries of Political Power
by Eduardo G. Fajermo Jr., in Angeles City
Philippine Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero has come under public scrutiny after it was reported that his 2022 senatorial campaign received ₱30 million from Victoria Construction, a private contractor that later secured government projects.
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) confirmed that no laws were explicitly violated since Escudero was not a sitting public official during the campaign. But with this issue coming to light, concerns about the porous boundaries between campaign finance, public office, and private influence have reignited.
Section 95(c) of the Omnibus Election Code prohibits campaign contributions from entities holding contracts with the government. However, because Escudero was a private citizen at the time of the donation, the transaction skirted legal liability. This technicality exposes a loophole ripe for exploitation. The resulting ambiguity creates a permissive environment in which ethically questionable contributions are normalized, raising the risk of regulatory capture and undermining public trust in the Philippines’ democratic institutions.
In a significant development, the Commission on Elections has initiated a motu proprio investigation into campaign contributions made by government contractors. With that, the regulatory bodies are beginning to assert their authority even in the absence of a formal complaint. The move signals a potential shift toward more proactive enforcement, though whether this will lead to actual accountability remains to be seen.
The controversy illustrates a broader institutional vulnerability. The Philippines lacks mechanisms for real-time disclosure, independent auditing, or sufficient transparency in political finance. Accountability, when it occurs, tends to be post hoc and politically selective. This legal-institutional landscape allows political actors to technically comply with the law while sidestepping its spirit.
As Benedict Anderson observed in The Spectre of Comparisons, Southeast Asian democracies often adopt formal institutions that mirror liberal democratic models, yet these structures can become symbolic or inconsistent in practice, serving elite interests rather than enabling substantive public participation. Similarly, Patricio Abinales and Donna Amoroso, in their seminal work State and Society in the Philippines, describe a polity where state institutions are deeply embedded in patron-client networks. In this context, campaign donations can operate not simply as expressions of support, but as investments and calculated moves in a political marketplace where access and influence are often traded for future considerations.
The Escudero episode thus reflects both the resilience and fragility of Philippine democracy. On the one hand, the rule of law is invoked to justify inaction; on the other, watchdog institutions like COMELEC are showing signs of life by initiating investigations unprompted. Yet without systemic reforms in political finance regulation, these efforts risk being token gestures in a system where formal rules remain vulnerable to informal pressures.
As ASEAN continues to grapple with the challenges of democratic consolidation, the Philippine case is emblematic of a broader regional tension: the struggle to move from rule by law to rule of law. Whether this moment catalyzes reform or reinforces cynicism will depend not just on outcomes, but on whether the public and institutions alike demand more than legal minimalism from those in power.
Eduardo is a faculty member at Holy Angel University, where he teaches courses on Philippine history and contemporary global issues. He is currently pursuing a Master’s degree in Political Science at the University of Santo Tomas, with a research focus on disaster governance, environmental politics, and the urban poor in the Philippines.
Singapore 🇸🇬
Is Living in Singapore Unaffordable?
by Ryan
Singapore frequently tops global rankings as one of the world’s most expensive cities. In 2024, Mercer ranked Singapore as the second most expensive city in the world, while Julius Baer as the most expensive city in 2025. But is it really unaffordable to live in Singapore?
Housing is a prime example. Property prices in Singapore are among the highest worldwide, leading to the perception of an unattainable housing market. However, Singapore has one of the highest home ownership rates, with over 90% of Singaporeans owning a home. More than 80% of Singaporeans live in Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats, where affordability is supported by government subsidies and financing through the Central Provident Fund (CPF). Most monthly mortgage payments are often covered using CPF Ordinary Account savings, which means many households do not pay cash out of pocket. This system has allowed home ownership rates in Singapore to remain among the highest globally, defying the notion that housing costs make the city unaffordable for its citizens.
Food expenses provide another counterpoint. While upscale dining options in the central business district can rival those in New York or Tokyo, everyday meals remain accessible. At hawker centers and food courts—integral to Singapore’s culture—meals range from SG$3 to SG$6. For many residents, this keeps food costs manageable despite rising global food inflation. Similarly, public transportation offers reliable and affordable mobility, with fares that remain below many other developed urban centers.
These nuances matter because they reveal how global indices, which often reflect expatriate consumption patterns, do not fully reflect the lived reality of most Singaporeans. While households still face genuine financial pressures, particularly from healthcare and childcare, government measures such as U-Save rebates, community vouchers, and GST vouchers provide further buffers against rising costs.
The real challenge lies less in day-to-day affordability and more in long-term sustainability. Wage stagnation, demographic pressures from an ageing population, and exposure to global price fluctuations continue to strain household budgets. Nevertheless, Singapore’s blend of targeted subsidies, compulsory savings, and affordable local amenities has allowed most residents to maintain a standard of living far more resilient than international rankings suggest.
Ryan is a final-year finance student at the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) with experience across venture capital, venture debt, and business development. He also holds a diploma in Law and Management from Temasek Polytechnic. His interests lie in how emerging technologies and economic trends shape business ecosystems and regional development in Asia.
Vietnam 🇻🇳
AI’s Pivotal Role in Bolstering Domestic Markets in New Campaign for 2025–2027
by Hang Nguyen, in Ho Chi Minh City
On August 8, the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MoIT) issued Decision No. 2269/QĐ-BCT, launching a two-year economic development program to stimulate domestic production, markets, and consumption sustainably. This initiative promotes the nationwide “Vietnamese People Prioritize Vietnamese Goods” campaign, with key priorities which include retail chains, smart markets, digitalized logistics, and modern business-to-business agricultural trading platforms.
AI plays a pivotal role in integrating the program’s innovative goals into Vietnam’s local consumer economy. Phase 2025 targets substantial revenue and profit growth of 10.5%-12.0% in retail sales and customer service industries while also maintaining a supply-and-demand balance, avoiding shortages, and ensuring stable market prices. The MoIT’s action plans also focus on trade diversification, support for private businesses, better logistics, and greener manufacturing technologies.
By Phase 2026-2027, the implementation of a new operative platform will strengthen connectivity between domestic and international commercial infrastructure. Vietnam’s use of AI and Big Data will enhance the performance of innovative retail distribution models and support an ecosystem of smart markets, advanced retail chains, and digital logistics. Specifically, Decision No. 2269/QĐ-BCT highlights AI and Big Data’s role in analyzing consumer behavior, the prevention of counterfeit goods, commercial fraud, and tax evasion.
Vietnam recognizes the urgency to optimize AI technology and develop Vietnam-centric AI models. According to Việt Nam News’ Lê Hương, the local AI sector is forecasted to grow 16% annually. Đinh Anh Tuấn, an AI expert based in Silicon Valley, emphasizes AI’s capacity to transform humanity. Truong Gia Binh, chairman of FPT Corporation, also underscores the importance of AI sovereignty in preserving Vietnam’s national security, while pointing to solidarity as a key national strength. Au Lac AI Alliance, launched in June 2025, is the first national AI alliance consisting of prominent government agencies, tech companies, and academic research institutions. This initiative embodies Vietnam’s determination and progress towards becoming a self-sustaining AI powerhouse.
The country’s bottom-up approach prioritizes funding for education and research in AI development, as evident in Politburo’s Resolution 57-NQ/TW, which allocates 3% of the state’s annual budget for science and technology development, innovation, and national digital transformation. Young and innovative minds are strategically positioned at the forefront of Vietnam’s AI development through government scholarships and newly developed curricula.
On August 12th, ASEAN AI Summit (AAIMS) 2025 was held in Malaysia, launching numerous regional initiatives to boost AI literacy and accessibility in Southeast Asia–notably AI Class ASEAN and MaiStorage. Vietnam should take advantage of the available resources to increase the AI proficiency of its skilled workers and integrate more deeply into the regional AI development framework, thereby achieving its national goals more efficiently.
Hang is a young researcher with academic experience in Vietnam and the United States. She has previously worked in public relations at the U.S. Consulate General in Ho Chi Minh City and the YSEALI Academy. Her research focuses on ASEAN centrality in the evolving Asia-Pacific landscape, with particular attention to Vietnam’s approach to trade, regional cooperation, and political economy in the face of external power dynamics and global volatility.
Editorial Deadline 19/08/2025 11:59 PM (UTC +8)
Too many people, perhaps an all-time-high percentage, have to choose between which necessities of life they can afford. A very large and growing populace are increasingly too overworked, tired, worried and rightfully angry about housing and food unaffordability thus insecurity for themselves or their family — largely due to insufficient income — to criticize or boycott Big Business/Industry, or the superfluously wealthy, for the societal damage they needlessly cause/allow, particularly when it's not immediately observable.
I tend to doubt that this effect is totally accidental, as it greatly benefits the interests of insatiable greed. ... Apparently, the superfluous-wealth desires of the few, and especially the one, increasingly outweigh the life-necessity needs of the many.
A few social/labor uprisings or revolutions notwithstanding, it seems the superfluously rich and powerful have always had the police and military ready to foremost protect their big-money/-power interests, even over the basic needs of the masses, to the very end.
Even in modern (supposed) democracies, the police and military can, and perhaps would, claim — using euphemistic or political terminology, of course — they have/had to bust heads to maintain law and order as a priority during major demonstrations, especially those against economic injustices. Indirectly supported by a complacent, if not compliant, corporate news-media, which is virtually all mainstream news-media, the absurdly unjust inequities/inequalities can persist.
Perhaps there were/are lessons learned from those successful social/labor uprisings, with the clarity of hindsight, by more-contemporary big power/money interests in order to avoid any repeat of such great wealth/power losses (a figurative How to Hinder Progressive Revolutions 101, maybe).
And perhaps ‘Calamity’ Jane Bodine, in the film Our Brand Is Crisis, is correct in stating: “If voting changed anything [in favor of the poor and disenfranchised] they’d have made it illegal.”